OBJECTIVE: The objective was (1) to assess the frequency of atypical depression (AD) in depressed inpatients; (2) to compare clinical features of patients with atypical and nonatypical depression (Non-AD) (3) to evaluate the meaning of single psychopathological symptoms with special respect to mood reactivity. METHOD: Diagnoses of 1073 inpatients were assessed according to DSM-IV using SCID (Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV) and AMDP (Association for Methodology and Documentation). Diagnosis of atypical depression was defined according to criteria of the DSM-IV specifier for AD. All patients were rated using HAMD-21 (Hamilton Depression Scale). RESULTS: A high percentage of patients met criteria for AD (15.3%, 95% CI 13.0-17.9%). Women were more likely to suffer from AD (OR=1.54, p=0.037). There were no significant differences between AD and Non-AD patients regarding age, HAMD total baseline score, and diagnosis of any bipolar illness. In terms of psychopathology patients with AD were significantly more likely to suffer from somatic anxiety, somatic symptoms, guilt, genital symptoms, depersonalisation and suspiciousness as defined by HAMD-21 items. Interestingly, mood reactivity was not found to be significantly associated with the presence of two or more additional symptoms of AD. LIMITATIONS: Results were assessed by a post-hoc analysis, based on prospectively collected data. Compared to other inpatient samples with MDE, prevalence of bipolar disorder was rather low. CONCLUSION: (1) Frequency of AD may be underestimated, especially in inpatient samples. Further studies of inpatient samples are recommended. (2) Quality of distinct anxiety symptoms may be different in both groups, with AD patients being more likely to suffer from somatic symptoms and somatic anxiety. The presence of suspiciousness and even paranoid phenomena may not exclude a diagnosis of AD, but may be related to rejection sensitivity. (3) The mandatory presence of mood reactivity for the diagnosis of AD needs further consideration, regarding its validity for the concept.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was (1) to assess the frequency of atypical depression (AD) in depressed inpatients; (2) to compare clinical features of patients with atypical and nonatypical depression (Non-AD) (3) to evaluate the meaning of single psychopathological symptoms with special respect to mood reactivity. METHOD: Diagnoses of 1073 inpatients were assessed according to DSM-IV using SCID (Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV) and AMDP (Association for Methodology and Documentation). Diagnosis of atypical depression was defined according to criteria of the DSM-IV specifier for AD. All patients were rated using HAMD-21 (Hamilton Depression Scale). RESULTS: A high percentage of patients met criteria for AD (15.3%, 95% CI 13.0-17.9%). Women were more likely to suffer from AD (OR=1.54, p=0.037). There were no significant differences between AD and Non-ADpatients regarding age, HAMD total baseline score, and diagnosis of any bipolar illness. In terms of psychopathology patients with AD were significantly more likely to suffer from somatic anxiety, somatic symptoms, guilt, genital symptoms, depersonalisation and suspiciousness as defined by HAMD-21 items. Interestingly, mood reactivity was not found to be significantly associated with the presence of two or more additional symptoms of AD. LIMITATIONS: Results were assessed by a post-hoc analysis, based on prospectively collected data. Compared to other inpatient samples with MDE, prevalence of bipolar disorder was rather low. CONCLUSION: (1) Frequency of AD may be underestimated, especially in inpatient samples. Further studies of inpatient samples are recommended. (2) Quality of distinct anxiety symptoms may be different in both groups, with ADpatients being more likely to suffer from somatic symptoms and somatic anxiety. The presence of suspiciousness and even paranoid phenomena may not exclude a diagnosis of AD, but may be related to rejection sensitivity. (3) The mandatory presence of mood reactivity for the diagnosis of AD needs further consideration, regarding its validity for the concept.
Authors: F Seemüller; M Riedel; S Dargel; N Djaja; R Schennach-Wolff; S Dittmann; H-J Möller; E Severus Journal: Nervenarzt Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 1.214
Authors: Richard Musil; Florian Seemüller; Sebastian Meyer; Ilja Spellmann; Mazda Adli; Michael Bauer; Klaus-Thomas Kronmüller; Peter Brieger; Gerd Laux; Wolfram Bender; Isabella Heuser; Robert Fisher; Wolfgang Gaebel; Rebecca Schennach; Hans-Jürgen Möller; Michael Riedel Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Jessica Dere; Jiahong Sun; Yue Zhao; Tonje J Persson; Xiongzhao Zhu; Shuqiao Yao; R Michael Bagby; Andrew G Ryder Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2013-06-27